The Supreme Court ratified the ruling by the Court of Appeals of Valparaiso and rejected an injunction filed by Invertec Pesquera Mar de Chiloe (INVERMAR) against the National Fisheries and Aquaculture Service (SERNAPESCA) because of the implementation of a series of measures to prevent the spread of the infectious salmon anemia (ISA) virus.
The Court unanimously rejected a prudential judgment action brought by the fishing firm against the order issued by SERNAPESCA in February, forcing the company to make an early harvest in Traiguen I centre on the island of Chiloe, after detecting the presence of ISA virus.
According to the National Service Director, José Miguel Burgos, the court decision is noteworthy because it confirms that SERNAPESCA acted in compliance with the current laws and their own functions.
“The ruling confirms that, by declaring a sanitary emergency, the State is authorized to adopt a series of measures such as the early harvest, which must be taken quickly to prevent the spread of the outbreak and protect the country’s sanitary status,” the official pointed out.
Burgos stressed that the sanitary status “is what is threatened when, by way of the prosecution, is trying to hinder the work of the Service in its role as guarantor of the public welfare through the legitimate exercise of its powers, which is now endorsed by the ruling of the highest court of the country.”
Invermar considered that the decision adopted by Exempt Resolution No. 227 issued by SERNAPESCA in February, which declared a sanitary emergency in macrozone No. 3 and in Traiguén 1 centre implemented the early harvest or elimination of the entire centre within 30 days, was “illegal and arbitrary”. The company argued that “in its opinion the threat of ISA virus outbreak that justifies the referred determination would be controlled”. In addition, it also cited the existence of conflicting scientific reports between those commissioned by the company and SERNAPESCA.
But the Supreme Court’s ruling determined that “the issue raised is not likely to be solved by this route, since the legal and factual situation presented by the appellant has been contradicted.” Therefore, it concludes that the injunction is not the proper way to proceed against such decisions, since there is no undoubted right that has been violated.
1995 – 2014 Fish Info & Services Co.Ltd